The Bishop's Letter

  • Thread starter Thread starter El_PAso
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

El_PAso

Guest
My parish was met with this letter from the Bishop.

"You may recall that two weeks ago your pastor, Fr. X, put out a message on which explained that I was sending him for medical evaluation. It is now with regret that I inform you that Father X will not be returning to ministry at [redacted] Parish. I know this message will be met with much sadness as he has served many with great kindness. Nevertheless, after discussions with medical experts, senior diocesan leadership, and Father X himself, I have come to the conclusion that now is not the time for him to return to priestly ministry.

As noted in the message you received two weeks ago, Father X is not the subject of any criminal investigation. Nevertheless, I have serious concerns about his current wellbeing which must be addressed properly. While some may desire more information than what is offered in this letter I must note that Father X is not only a priest but also an employee and he enjoys the same rights to his privacy as do all employees. For now I ask that you trust in the medical experts, diocesan leadership, and my own concern for Fr. X.

In coming to this decision I have not only given careful consideration to the wellbeing of Fr. X but also to the needs of your parish.

It then goes on to introduce the new priest and dos not address Fr X again.

I find this a very clumsily composed letter to a concerned parish who is losing a much loved pastor. I’ve been at parishes before where the pastor became ill or had to take leave for health reasons but this is odd. No word at all from Fr. X. His FB and other pages have disappeared… Of all the parishes I have been to I can not recall a more popular pastor! For his to basically disappear is disturbing and the current scandals can not be ignored in our imagination…

Bummer…

EP
 
Last edited:
The last time I saw a priest have to step away for professional help, the priest himself gave a speech from the pulpit that sounded similar to the bishop’s letter, i.e. no legal issue (which we all understood to mean he was not accused of sexual abuse or embezzlement or anything) but he had a personal problem and needed to step away and take care of it and thus would be gone indefinitely.

The priest returned after a few months and at that time publicly announced from the pulpit that he had a problem with alcohol and had apparently gone off to a rehab to get back on the right track.

I am guessing that your pastor has either a substance abuse problem or a mental health problem and may not be in good enough shape to make a speech to his flock. He may even have asked the bishop to please inform his parish. And the problem may be something embarrassing or alarming. In this type of situation, the bishop is barred from explaining exactly what’s wrong with the priest due to privacy laws, so I don’t really know how he could have written any other sort of a letter. I’m not sure what you would have expected the bishop to do instead.

I know it is hard to have a priest that you like and trust and has been around for a long time just disappear. I found it difficult when the priest I mentioned above went away, even though he was not my pastor, I did not know him all that well and had only met him the previous year. I was bothered by not knowing exactly what was wrong. The best thing to do is probably to just pray for your former pastor. You may also hear more about him “on the grapevine”, parishes being what they are. I don’t know as I’d go looking for info though as you never know what you’ll find and it may be something you wish you hadn’t found out.
 
Last edited:
I don’t see anything wrong with how the letter was worded. There could be various reasons why he has been relieved of his priestly ministry at that parish. The letter did state he was sent for medical evaluation - could physical or mental or emotional. That is sufficient and all that needs to be said. Wanting to know more may stem from geniune concern or curiosity, and the latter is to be avoided.
It also says that the priest himself was involved in this decision along with his superiors and medical experts.

The best thing you can do for this priest is to pray for him to be restored to good health.
 
El_PAso said:
As noted in the message you received two weeks ago, Father X is not the subject of any criminal investigation.
Click to expand...
Yes, really.

It states ‘in the message you received two weeks ago…’ So it is just re-stating a previously known fact.
It then goes onto to express the concern regarding his current wellbeing - health.

So I understand this to be a way of assuring parishoners that Father is not under criminal investigation for any crime (insert whatever comes to mind, child abuse, theft from parish funds etc) and was not removed pending the completion of the same.
El_PAso said:
Why would “senior diocesan leadership” be consulted for an ill priest?
Click to expand...
Because they are his superiors (I’m assuming Bishops/Archbishop here), and if he is to be relieved of his responsibilities of parish priest, then this falls within their jurisdiction of governing over the diocese. It is not the same as going on two weeks sick leave. There is a possibility that the illness will take a long time to recover from or even is terminal, perhaps cancer.

Yes it is up to the Bishops to decide if a priest is to remain in active ministry, but in order for them to understand the symptoms, duration, impacts of whatever ailment it is, is also necessary in coming to a decision as to what is in the best interest of the priest and the functioning of the parish too.

Perhaps I lack a suspicious mind then.
 
CRV said:
Because they are his superiors (I’m assuming Bishops/Archbishop here), and if he is to be relieved of his responsibilities of parish priest, then this falls within their jurisdiction of governing over the diocese. It is not the same as going on two weeks sick leave. There is a possibility that the illness will take a long time to recover from or even is terminal, perhaps cancer.
Click to expand...
Another reason for the Bishop mentioning this is so that the parish knows he followed proper procedure and didn’t just decide on his own to kick beloved Fr. X out of his long-time pastoral role. There have been a lot of news media articles accusing various bishops of unceremoniously removing some priest over a disagreement. If the Bishop didn’t mention that he had discussed it with the senior diocesan leadership, etc, then I’m betting a bunch of parishioners would be writing or calling the “senior diocesan leadership” trying to get this reversed.

I also think that given the circumstances, the parish would be “in a state” regardless of what type of letter they got. The parish is not happy, they miss their pastor, they didn’t get a chance to say goodbye, they are wondering what is going on. All understandable but they have to defer to the bishop and the process at this point.
 
Last edited:
El_PAso said:
Really?!

I speaks of medical issues and interjects “no criminal investigation” THAT’S beyond clumsy. It’s like “are you still beating your wife?” kind of statement.
Click to expand...
Not at all, as I see it. Fr. X has his right to privacy and it may involve personal sin that is inappropriate to disclose. You sign HIPAA statements each time you visit doctor. Is Fr. X any less of a person?

Clearly, his behavior has been an issue or else this all would not have come to pass.

It sounds to me more like you really appreciate the good pastoral history of Fr. X and are expressing your dismay and frustration.
 
Agreed. At least by expressing that the decision was made by the Bishop, diocesan leadership and medical experts in conjunction with the priest is making the reasons and decison transparent.

The Bishop has taken it upon himself to inform parishoners of this decision, the reasons and who was involved in the decision. As you point out, this isn’t always the case, and where that happens , then people do tend to speculate. The letter is meant to be reassuring and transparent.

But if one was unaware of matters, then I can see how some people would speculate that there is more going on that what is being let on.
Tis_Bearself said:
I also think that given the circumstances, the parish would be “in a state” regardless of what type of letter they got. The parish is not happy, they miss their pastor, they didn’t get a chance to say goodbye, they are wondering what is going on. All understandable but they have to defer to the bishop and the process at this point.
Click to expand...
Exactly! Well said.
 
El_PAso said:
It’s like “are you still beating your wife?” kind of statement.
Click to expand...
LOL. I still don’t understand what this is supposed to mean, but it doesn’t fail at making me laugh out loud.
El_PAso said:
My parish was met with this letter from the Bishop.
Click to expand...
You appreciate that in some countries bishops don’t write letters to parishes ?? In my country I don’t recall any instance of anyone telling me:“the parishioners got a letter from the bishop”.

When I read someone on CAF saying:“write a letter to the bishop” the idea seemed appealing and absurd. As if anyone would ever read, or consider, such a letter…

[You appreciate that in most countries any bureaucratic instance is expected to not work -under no circumstance whatsoever !!- and if you’re writing a letter your social importance predetermines the outcome and reception, the paper being just an amiable formality.] 😀 LOL
 
Last edited:
adgloriam said:
LOL. I still don’t understand what this is supposed to mean, but it doesn’t fail at making me laugh out loud.
Click to expand...
The example is usually given as a lawyer asking a witness who is testifying for the opposing side, “When did you stop beating your wife?” The question is considered unfair because it portrays the witness to the jury as a wife-beater, even though he has allegedly (according to the question) stopped doing it. Such questions would typically receive an Objection from the witness’ lawyer.

Here, the OP thinks that the statement about “no criminal investigation” somehow suggests to the parish that the pastor committed or contemplated some heinous act, probably sexual abuse. I’m not seeing it that way however.
 
That’s brilliant Bear “unfair question because it portrays as”…Just cunning. I’ll be looking out for that one, and I’ll remember your explanation. Thank you.
 
El_PAso said:
You guys ever hear of Mr. McCarrick?
Click to expand...
Least we forget: the aforementioned gent was instrumental diplomatically in closing the deal between China and the Vatican…That’s a 1 billion soul market being reopened to the salvation of souls…I guess some things are just priceless 😀
 
You seem to be getting a little carried away. McCarrick and the CA confessional seal (by the way, the proposed law on that died before it got to committee in the state Senate, in case you missed the news story) do not seem to have anything to do with your pastor.

You need to accept that not everybody is going to agree with you that a bishop is somehow failing to effectively lead because he writes your parish a letter that you and some others don’t like, but that seems pretty normal to several of us removed from the situation.

You frankly seem to be very emotionally involved with this situation and not really able to consider it objectively. With that, I will leave this thread, and pray for your former pastor and your parish. God bless.
 
Last edited:
In no way should the Church or its leadership gives up anything to either secular institutions or to the laity. The Church answers only to Christ.
 
Rhetorical question.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Breaking the seal of confession is a separate issue.

Are you assuming this priest was removed due to allegations of sexual abuse? (In light as how you raised the issue of Mr. McCarrick). Is this your insinuation?

Not all priests are ‘moved on’ solely due to alleged sexual abuse.

Until any guilt is publicly announced by the diocese, then it is not worth getting in a flap about. Personally I prefer to avoid rash judgement.
 
Remember Perry Mason? I know, you’re much too young. Anyway, this question ‘assumes facts not in evidence’, i.e. that the defendant does now or did beat his wife before. There is assumed guilt and no way to answer it with a denial.

As to the OP: Each and every time that a priest is removed from his assignment, the murmuring begins. This is bad in and of itself, as it then leads to speculation, gossip, detraction, even calumny.

The Bishop was in a tough position, making it clear that “abuse” is NOT the reason for Fr. X’s departure. It is some other medical condition - about which we should not speculate, but rather, supplicate.
 
Last edited:
Yes, it was taught to me that it assumes a) the man has a wife, b) the man beat his wife before, and c) the man has now stopped beating his wife. This is all assuming it’s the first question the lawyer asks without establishing a), b) and c). That is the law school use of the example.

In the world of non-lawyer laymen, it generally signifies an allusion to bad behavior (as I explained); non-lawyers don’t understand the whole “facts not in evidence” thing.

And yes, I am too young for / went to law school too late for Perry Mason. “Law and Order” was the show we followed, as it was the one least likely to show lawyers committing ridiculous breaches of civil procedure and ethics.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
In the world of non-lawyer laymen, it generally signifies an allusion to bad behavior (as I explained); non-lawyers don’t understand the whole “facts not in evidence” thing.
Click to expand...
Well then, they need to watch a couple of Perry Mason YouTube vids! I was kind enough to leave out allegations of lack of foundation, hearsay, incompetence, irrelevance, immateriality, badgering the witness etc. etc. etc. 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top